Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “if the plan administrator is operating under a conflict of interest, ‘that conflict must be weighed as a factor in determining whether there is an abuse of discretion’ ”
• concluding without analysis that an ERISA remand was a final order
• stating that in conflict cases “the standard of review would not exactly change, but scrutiny of [the administrator’s] decision would become more search ing”—but finding no conflict to exist, so not further describing that type of scrutiny
• collecting cases and recognizing that “[w]e have not been stingy in our determinations that discretion is conferred upon plan administrators”
• emphasizing the importance of obtaining exams by specialists when decision is reviewed de novo
• emphasizing the importance of obtaining exams by specialists when decision is reviewed de novo

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).